You can probably make electricity directly from H2, and you can probably make special pressure vessels that'll store that H2 (though even then it'll have a 7 year "inspect thoroughly" and a 15 year "throw it out regardless" lifespan.)

H2 is a silly fuel unless you're making rockets. Or if you're trying to distract people.

There's the saying "Any idiot can build a bridge; it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."

To put this another way, any idiotic LLM can write code. It takes a person with domain experience to understand what code to write, rewrite, or not write.

I've seen lots of organizations hollow out their internal competence in favor of outsourcing the skills. LLMs are the ultimate expression of that. There are people who say "you need to have people in your organization who understand how things work because they're the ones who solve problems!" and there are other people who say "focus on your core competencies! These problems you're worried about aren't your core competencies, so get rid of those experts, they're expensive and annoying; we can just sign a contract with an organization that'll know things for us."

At some point we all will identify exactly how much "seed corn" you need for the next season. We'll figure that out because we're starving, but at least we'll all know.

If I'm talking to a friend or peer and I'm on a crappy link, we can probably work it out. If I'm calling my lawyer from prison with my "one call" I really want my lawyer to get my instructions clearly and correctly, ideally the first time without a lot of coaching.

Where on this scale does "person talking to LLM" fit?

I believe there's a ton of research into the shannon limit and human speech. You can trivially observe how much redundancy there is by listening to a podcast at 1x, 1.2x, 1.5x, 2x, etc, and when you can't follow what's going on, you've found the "redundancy" built into that language. This number falls way off when you're listening to a person with an accent or when the recording is noisy or whatever.

You'll also find that your tolerance for lossy media is radically different based on latency and echos and jitter in the audio (which I believe is the point of the original "don't use webrtc" article...)

Finally, people may tolerate this, but the "phonem to token" thinger may be less tolerant, and will certainly not be able to magic correct meaning from lost packets, and if the resulting exchange is extremely expensive or important (from the lawyer and the "I'm in jail in poughkeepsie; I need bail!" exchange) you really want to take the time to get it right, not make things guess.

share and enjoy!

A compounding issue is that using AF_ALG doesn't require a separate syscall: it's just using SYS_socket with the first argument set to 38. Your container behaviour specification needs to be specific enough to not only enumerate allowed syscalls, but the allowed values for each syscall parameter.

In the vast majority of the world, you set permissions to what's reasonable and trust that most of the time things will work out pretty well and have a plan for if you need to fix things on the fly.

I personally am not terribly paranoid, but I've worked places where we had to be pretty paranoid (shared hosting).

At the time I got the car I wasn't sure if I wanted the old "totally obsolete" AP1 or the "probably going to get way better (cough)" AP2; I'm glad I got the obsolete version....

I wonder if there are modern cars with systems comparable to the mobileye system from the original tesla setup.

I understand your pragmatism, but it still boggles my mind how this metric could be considered satisfactory.

With an AP1 car, you can scan ahead 5-10 seconds (in about 1 second) and pretty quickly assess if the car's going to have a hard time with anything coming up (mostly it is an issue of lane lines vanishing in highway curves or lanes splitting ambiguously).

It is in the happy medium of predictably stupid such that it isn't ever really trusted. Something smarter may lull you into trusting it more, which leads to situations where it can trick you... I imagine there are people who think it's safe enough to scan the road every 1-2 minutes when in a more automated vehicle, and obviously the ultimate goal is "people in car ignore the driving aspect of the trip" -- both of those seem pretty ambitious goals but people are spending gigatons of money to solve these, so maybe it'll be solved?

I've also had animals jump in front of me (just in general, not related to teslas); driving is just dangerous but is a lot more convenient than walking everywhere.

At the right altitude where you can "float" on the ocean, it's a pretty comfortable temperature and there's plenty of solar energy but you're shielded from the solar radiation. So, long term, your body will still work, assuming you can solve "the other problems."

Of course, the down-side is that there's nothing to stand on and probably more importantly, there aren't many useful materials to work with besides tons of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. One of them, anyhow. Also, there's probably not a whole lot to do besides float (zoom, actually) around and slowly go stir crazy in your bubble.

But relatively speaking, it's way nicer than living in a hole on mars where you'll slowly die from gravity sickness, or radiation poisoning, or whatever.

Actually, the cloud layer at that level is mostly sulfuric acid, from which you can get your water. It also means you need to be in a hazmat suit when you walk outside, but that's still a step up from everywhere else, where you need a bulky pressure suit instead.

Similarly, having more cache may mean less SSD activity, which may mean less energy draw overall.

If I had a chip to put on the roulette table of this "what if" I'd put it on the "it won't make a difference in the real world in any meaningful way" square.

I use them all at probably random ratios as the mood and task suit me.

I also use a single 30 inch 16:10 monitor.

Everyone else in my family hates this setup.

Irritatingly, this doesn't work by default on the mac where the meta keys only affect the keys on the keyboard owning the depressed key (IE left shift and right keyboard l will not result in L).

It uses a bit more desk space, but is otherwise a pretty good way to test out "do I want a split keyboard?"

I did that because I was interested in split keyboards but they are all more expensive than what buying another keyboard.

It's an interesting hack, though.

You need some added tools to make it work with macos, as someone else pointed out

These days I just use a single keyboard (the IBM M4-1 keyboard) and get up frequently.